#Third Party Insurance

The Gauhati High Court held that a cover note remains valid for 60 days under IRDA regulations, and the pay-and-recover principle prevents insurers from avoiding third-party liability due to a driver's licence violation unless the breach directly caused the accident. The ruling reinforces that statutory victim protection under the Motor Vehicles Act overrides policy defences unconnected to the collision.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that insurers cannot avoid third-party liability merely because the driver was unlicensed, affirming the statutory mandate of Section 147. However, the insurer retains a right of recovery against the vehicle owner, reinforcing the dual framework of public protection and private accountability in motor insurance. The ruling also corrects disability assessment and applies a 15x multiplier for a child claimant, setting a precedent for fair compensation in minor injury cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that insurers cannot deny third-party liability under the Motor Vehicles Act merely because a vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate. Liability attaches unless the insurer proves the expired certificate directly caused the accident, reinforcing that statutory breaches alone do not void coverage without a direct link to the incident.

Calcutta High Court rules that insurers cannot reject motor accident claims solely based on delayed FIR filing or unverified allegations of fake licenses. The court mandates a prior inquiry and hearing for the vehicle owner before denying compensation, enhancing the award to Rs. 14 lakh with 6% interest. This reinforces procedural fairness in third-party liability claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Insurers under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot escape third-party liability merely by alleging suppression of previous policy dates unless they produce signed, verifiable evidence from the insured. The ruling reinforces that valid policy status on the accident date is decisive, shifting the burden squarely onto insurers to substantiate their defenses - a critical win for claimants in motor accident cases.

Karnataka High Court rules that insurers are not liable for compensation under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act if the claimant violates road safety regulations (e.g., riding on a tractor mudguard) and the driver lacks a valid license. The liability shifts to the vehicle owner, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory conditions for third-party insurance claims.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that an employee traveling in a goods vehicle qualifies as a 'third party' under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, entitling them to insurance coverage. Insurers cannot avoid liability merely by alleging negligence unless they prove a willful breach of policy terms, reinforcing statutory protection for victims in motor accident claims.

Madras High Court holds insurers must pay third-party compensation even if driver lacked valid license, per Swaran Singh precedent; recovery permitted from insured.